This copy is for your personal non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies of Toronto Star content for distribution to colleagues, clients or customers, or inquire about permissions/licensing, please go to: www.TorontoStarReprints.com

It may fizzle and vanish as quickly as it exploded. But for now, based on page views and coffee house chatter, no other story keeps jabbing us in the ribs with the threat of new sordid revelations. No other story is as primed for shock and awe.

So, naturally, every media outlet wants in on the madness.

If there were a Canadian magazine called Celebrities & Stuffed Animals, you can bet it would now be working on a cover story about Big Ears Teddy. If there were a specialty TV channel devoted to nuts and dried fruit, it would’ve already commissioned a doc about Ghomeshi’s fondness for “Persian pistachios.”

This is a function of supply and demand in the churning life cycle of any big story: until people lose interest in the subject, it will be drill-mined for content, however questionable or tenuous.

Article Continued Below

On Thursday, the day after Ghomeshi made his first public appearance amid a crush of reporters and flash bulbs at a Toronto courthouse, Flare magazine jumped into the mine shaft. Given its slogan (“Canada’s fashion magazine”) and slate of stories currently up for offer — “4 Party Outfit Ideas Inspired by Off-Duty Models,” “30 Parkas for Every Price,” “Ask Bobbi Brown Your Multicultural Beauty Questions!” — the Ghomeshi angle was not surprising.

The magazine interviewed an image consultant and defence lawyer. These experts were asked about Ghomeshi’s wardrobe to “decode his courtroom style.”

Cue the outrage.

On Twitter, as soon as the magazine sent out a link with that headline, the blowback was swift and unanimous. Flare was called “irresponsible,” “tone-deaf,” “pathetic,” “idiotic” and “disgusting.” The criticism boiled down to two questions: 1. Why are these lifestyle naifs trivializing sexual assault with a puff piece on fashion? 2. Have they no shame?

So I read the story with a furrowed brow, expecting to be shocked by the magazine’s unfortunate lapse in judgment. I planned to spend five minutes in the glow of my laptop screen, shaking my fists with disbelief as I sub-vocalized flowery passages about Ghomeshi’s blue socks or the modern cut of his trousers.

Instead, I read a story that was shockingly legitimate. In fact, had the same story run in Maclean’s or the National Post, it would have generated no outrage. It would have either been ignored or shared with messages such as, “This was interesting.”

The experts simply gave Flare their opinions on what Ghomeshi had on and how those sartorial choices can shape perceptions. They talked about the message a necktie telegraphs in a legal setting, what the colour of a suit reveals about a person in the docks. The defence lawyer, for example, advises clients to never wear black because, “It’s associated with the bad guy.”

There was no red carpet tone to any of this. There was no snarky or gushing commentary about Ghomeshi’s sense of “style.” Even after reading it for a third time, I failed to grasp the criticism, failed to see how the story makes a mockery of the serious allegations he faces or is somehow an affront to the victims.

From politics to the criminal justice system to Fortune 500 executive recruitment, we already know there is a small army of experts who specialize in image consulting. And from sociological experiments, starting in the ’70s, we also know that we are affected by how a person looks. We should also remember, this was not just Ghomeshi’s first court appearance; it was his first appearance in public since the scandal broke.

His appearance at this appearance was a valid inquiry.

If the magazine is guilty of anything, it’s cowardice. It should have never apologized, as it did on Friday, because there was nothing to apologize for. I suppose stories about parkas don’t normally spark controversy. So maybe the editors panicked. They should have exhibited a bit more spine.

That aside, if there’s something we should all worry about, it’s the speed at which an angry mob can now form on the Internet. There is a pack mentality on social media, a scourge of groupthink and reflexive hostility that compels normally sensible people to freak out before they’ve even read the thing others are telling them is worthy of freaking out.

More from the Toronto Star & Partners

LOADING

Copyright owned or licensed by Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or distribution of this content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited and/or its licensors. To order copies of Toronto Star articles, please go to: www.TorontoStarReprints.com